8 ms·
Big Tech needs a reckoning. They are stagnant because they outsource almost all real R&D to startups they can buy only after they've done the hard work of prov
by fullarr 3y ago
Big Tech needs a reckoning.
They are stagnant because they outsource almost all real R&D to startups they can buy only after they've done the hard work of proving success
I know it's not a monopoly per se, but it's anti-competitive and there's too many walled gardens
- ejb999 3y agolargely true of pharma companies as well - they are largely big marketing organizations, where most of the real R&D is done by small startups that can be purchased when necessary.
- fullarr 3y agoIt feels like part of it is a cultural issue. People in the startup space largely seem uninterested in starting companies they will run their whole life They just want the fun of experimentation and a payday And like that's fine whatever, live your life, but it's creating a really crappy feedback loop of monopolization and buy outs
- nickpp 3y agoAny single Nx buyout results in N additional startups being funded. This is how VC culture operates and grows. It’s one of the main ingredients that build Silicon Valley’s success. Other countries are desperate to copy this model.
- fullarr 3y agoI'm not arguing that it doesn't work and create a feedback loop I'm arguing it's destructive long-term by creating a Goliath no one can compete with Or several Goliaths in this case Consolidation leads to stagnation
- nickpp 3y agoGoliaths were and will always be around. But as long as there is an unregulated, free market - there will always be startups competing. It’s not easy, but it’s doable through innovation and creativity. The Goliaths are always more conservative, slower and less agile.
- gmerc 3y agoThat’s libertarian religious scripture that needs to be backed up by solid facts.
- seniorivn 3y agothe only solid fact that you need is that tech giants of the past are not tech giants today, and the same way MS missed mobile market, Nokia failed with touchscreen smartphones, atnt and its parts failed to innovate, ibm lost and left pc/x86server etc, current giants are likely to loose. The only difference now is that the biggest competition today is from foreign companies that leads to them being able to get support of government and therefore compete not on the basis of merit, but in a political way.
- JohnFen 3y ago> the only solid fact that you need is that tech giants of the past are not tech giants today That's far from the only solid fact you need to know, though. You need to know the conditions and circumstances around it all.
- marssaxman 3y agoDifferent stages of the corporate life cycle require different skills and attract people with different temperaments; someone who launches a startup is not necessarily going to be great at running it for their whole life, nor feel fulfilled by doing so. I prefer to work for startups whether they yield a "payday" or not - they usually don't - because huge organizations and complex bureaucracies leave me feeling miserable and demotivated.
- xyzelement 3y agoMaybe that’s fine? A company that can do cutting edge research and a company that can manufacture and market at scale don’t have to be the same company.
- sparrowInHand 3y agoThere is a invisible incentive filter though- nobody will create a startup that is not worth buying for a large company - or whos product would cannibalize somebody elses product in the oligopoly.
- xyzelement 3y agoI am not sure that's true (is it?) but more so, don't see how that follows from Pharma's alleged focus on acquisition. Can you give me an example where in a different world something good would happen that isn't happening now and why? I am not trying to be difficult just genuine don't see it yet.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- rustymonday 3y agoYou're right. More and more pharmaceutical manufacturing is contracted out to CDMOs. So one day big pharma might only do marketing.
- throw0101c 3y ago> where most of the real R&D is done by small startups that can be purchased when necessary. Or by governments.
- tnecniv 3y agoThis has a practical aspect that is different from software though. Bringing a drug to market requires a huge amount of capital and very specialized manufacturing. It’s very difficult for a small company to do that. I’m not saying it’s a good system necessarily, but it’s a big factor worth acknowledging and different from a tech start up.
- Mountain_Skies 3y agoPushing these companies to return money to their shareholders instead of keeping it in huge war chests used for buying up any potential competitors would be a good first step. Maybe something along the lines of "any company whose average market cap over the course of a fiscal year exceeds 1% of GDP is automatically broken up". Companies that don't want to be split into pieces would need to find ways to reduce their market cap, one of the quickest being sending dividends to shareholders, who could then invest that money into other parts of the economy or even other potential competitors.
- fullarr 3y agoIt would be easier to limit companies to fewer than 200 employees Edit: just a passing thought, I don't advocate for any of these ideas. Just complaining, I have no answers
- xyzelement 3y agoHow many people do you think are involved in creating the phone or computer you are writing this on?
- fullarr 3y agoThat's not an excuse to continue I'm not even anti-corporation, but to pretend everything is fine seems silly
- xyzelement 3y agoI find this "I don't feel good about X, so I am going to propose abolishing X without realizing all the consequences of that" vibe silly and dangerous. From my car to my computer to the clothes I wear, to the medical equipment for my kids' births, etc - everything was produced, sourced, and sold, by a fairly large organization that has optimized for delivering that thing to me. Both the necessities and the comforts of my life are powered by this - and same with you unless you're pretty much living off the land. If you don't like Amazon having your data, or whatever your issue is, don't use Amazon.
- georgeplusplus 3y agoHow do you expect more competition when most people in tech support more government regulation that inhibits smaller firms to compete? Serious question.
- fullarr 3y agoI don't expect anything to improve at all, TBH I would like to see the government break up a lot of these mega corporations, but it's not a great solution Our global economy just means overseas companies will buy them, or they will move offshore and compete where we can enforce anything I don't have any answers, but I think we can all recognize something's not working here
- georgeplusplus 3y agoI think you're absolutely right there's something extremely wrong going on. My point was the people who supported the policies that got us into this mess need to recognize that the solutions they want don't exist with what they supported in the past. So sacrifices need to be made.
- dartos 3y agoMore government regulation doesn’t automatically mean it’s harder for small companies to compete. It depends on the regulation.
- nickpp 3y agoRegulation is always favoring the incumbent. Always. The mere act of acknowledging, studying and respecting regulation (even if favorable) is a discouraging factor for a beginner founder.
- dartos 3y agoI think if studying the rules of running a business is enough work to discourage you from founding a business, then it’s probably not the right path for you anyway.
- kypro 3y agoThe thing is half of those startups wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for big tech acquisitions. The fact that a startup without a viable business model can still have a $1b+ exit simply for having good tech is part of the reason why startups attract so much capital and can afford to be innovative. I guess just be careful what you wish for. It can be anti-competitive, but it's also in part what's driven a lot of recent innovation.
- zeteo 3y agoDo the big companies really use and develop the acquired technology though? It seems like most acquisitions end up being shut down and/or crappified within a few years.
- Clubber 3y agoSometimes they do, sometimes they just buy companies to eliminate competition or future competition. Sometimes it's some of A, some of B. It really depends.
- JohnFen 3y agoWhile innovation is very important, I think that there is an unhealthy obsession with it. That obsession has a great deal of harmful effects and is a part of why people are increasingly holding tech in a dim light. The extreme focus on innovation leads to companies being abusive. Being abusive is a thing that has become normalized in the tech industry.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 3y agoOne has to go back decades to a time before this sort of stifling M&A activity began. Looking at the innovation that occurred in the era before zero interest rates and so-called "Big Tech", it blows away what people call "innovation" during the period of "tech startups" and mega-sized websites.